However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

The defendant, as the president of the C merchants' Association in Sihpo City E, took overall charge of the business of selecting the corporation and carrying out construction works on behalf of C merchants from July 2007 to December 2007 in relation to joint projects for improving the C structure.

On February 4, 2008, the Defendant promised to give orders to the representative G of the F limited liability company to another construction work in the future, and received 2,6110,000 won equivalent to 20% of the construction cost in return for solicitation.

As a result, the Defendant received property in exchange for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties while managing the affairs of the C Merchant Association.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Statements made by H and G in the second trial records;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a detailed statement (F) and I statement of transactions in the name of passbook;

1. Relevant Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts (Consideration of imprisonment and consideration of the fact that the defendant is in the position of president of the C merchants' Association and has the career of being punished three times

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that some of the funds received is used as the self-charge of the market

1. The latter part of Article 357 (3) of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for conviction under Article 32 (1) 2 and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Lawsuits to Dismiss an order for compensation;

1. Summary of the defendant's assertion

A. H, who was the general director of the C merchants’ association, received 20% of the construction amount from G, and the Defendant was unaware of this.

B. The Defendant was not subject to illegal solicitation from G.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court: ① H and G request the Defendant to change the 20% of the construction amount to F Representative G, and the wife J deposit KRW 25,146,640 with H’s account around February 4, 2008, and the said amount is smaller than 20% of the construction amount.